3 new INDRP disputes have been logged on 11’th of Sep 2017 in relation to the domain names thehouzz.co.in, midea.in and butterfly.in ownership.
Thehouzz.co.in: Very likely the complainant should be” Houzz (It’s popular for Homedesign and Remodeling Ideas) ”. Houzz.com owns names such as houzz.in, houzz.co.in,houzz.net,houzz.org..etc, Houzz.com is a popular brand too.
Midea.in: Very likely the complainant should be “Midea(Midea Global)”.Midea.com , also owns midea-uae.com.
Butterfly.in: Very likely the complainant should be “Butterfly.com”
Respondent of the domain name is a resident of AndhraPradesh, Vijaywada. Domain name is resolving and showing the “Developed website ”.
Respondent of the domain name is a resident of Moscow. Domain name is resolving and showing the “Website coming soon in 55 days”. This domain name is registered in 2012 , not sure what the complainant is doing all these years.
Respondent of the domain name is a resident of Delhi. Domain name is resolving and showing the “404 – page not found” Error.
How INDRP dispute has filed against this popular generic domain name? Even 5 years old kid can tell what a butterfly is
Honorable INDRP Arbitrator:
Mr. Amarjit Singh is appointed as the INDRP arbitrator for thehouzz.co.in ownership dispute.
Ms. Harini Narayanswamy is appointed as the INDRP arbitrator for Midea.in ownership dispute.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Chauhan is appointed as the INDRP arbitrator for butterfly.in ownership dispute.
1) Houzz / Houz is a generic word or internet slang word commonly used for “House” , also the respondent is genuinely using it for a business registered in India and has made a brand “TheHouzz” offering various house related products. Houzz.in is a platform for home renovation and design, bringing homeowners and home professionals together in a uniquely visual community. If the complinant’s guess is correct, we sincerely believe this is clearly a reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) attempt by the complainant. I hope honorable arbitrator Mr. Amarjit Singh will prove his experience giving a landmark arbitration ruling.
2) Midea.in dispute is slightly interesting. On the grounds of doctrine of latches , this has the potential to be rejected and also can’t see any bad faith on respondents end with the limited information we have. Respondent is looking to launch a website soon on this domain name. Again another potential dispute where the respondent has fair amount of chances to win.
3) Butterfly.in is registered in 2005 , what a stupidy to file an INDRP on this name? Filing an INDRP after 12 years of the registration? What the complainant is doing all these years and also filing on a generic name? With the limited information we have , it’s a clearly RDNH attempt. If our assumptions are correct and this name is lost in INDRP, it will be official to call “INDRP SUCKS”. We are optimisitic the respondent will win. Mr Rajeev Singh , all eyes are on you. You have a great chance to prove INDRP is mature arbitration process, hope you will live up to the expectations of .IN registrants.
Please note we have come to this opinion with the assumption that respondents will file a strong response. In absence of responses also , arbitrators can make sensible decisions. Per example Honorable arbitrator Mr Ankur Raheja has given a mature ruling in ArivaIndia.in dispute protecting the legal rights of the respondent although the respondent has not filed a response.
PLEASE AVOID OBVIOUS TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS, OBVIOUS TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS ARE INJURIOUS TO .IN EXTENSION REPUTATION AND AS WELL AS REGISTRANT HEALTH.